I noticed a couple of them (Rannakliev and Backstrom) cluster closely with two Isles clusters (1012 A-SC and 1012 A-SC1 in the Yahoo group). I suppose the Scandinavians could be descended from the Isles (viking thrall scenario) or could the Scandinavians be the source for these clusters (a founder effect?). Is there any way, short of a papertrail, to indicate the gene flow? Backstrom's a Swede, but in medieval times and before that the area was much more fluid than before today's nation-states.

I'm thinking the Scandinavians are much older overall(as a group over the Isles clusters). The members are genetically more distant from each other overall and any clustering with Isles' men seems much more recent due to matching up on several medium and fast markers with the Scandinavians. Also, there was a Bell Beaker presence in Denmark and southern Norway, that is if there was a Beaker/L21 spread connection.

I noticed a couple of them (Rannakliev and Backstrom) cluster closely with two Isles clusters (1012 A-SC and 1012 A-SC1 in the Yahoo group). I suppose the Scandinavians could be descended from the Isles (viking thrall scenario) or could the Scandinavians be the source for these clusters (a founder effect?). Is there any way, short of a papertrail, to indicate the gene flow? Backstrom's a Swede, but in medieval times and before that the area was much more fluid than before today's nation-states.

I'm thinking the Scandinavians are much older overall(as a group over the Isles clusters). The members are genetically more distant from each other overall and any clustering with Isles' men seems much more recent due to matching up on several medium and fast markers with the Scandinavians. Also, there was a Bell Beaker presence in Denmark and southern Norway, that is if there was a Beaker/L21 spread connection.

Thanks,Mike

Unfortunately Scandinavia, especially Denamrk, is one of the most undertested regions in FTDNA's database. I don't think anyone has a good idea how the R1b subclades will break down there. One thing we do know is that so far a great deal more L21 has turned up in Norway than any other R1b subclade. Also the so-called "Germanic" U106 so far appears to be pretty scarce in Norway. P312* appears to have a stronghold in Sweden, but is found in eastern Norway and Denmark as well. Whether these trends hold remains to be seen. However the L21 out of Britain crowd seem to be particularly opposed to any possibility that L21 was in Scandinavia before the Viking age.

I don't know if we have enough data there to make valid variance comparisons to other regions.

I have always suspected that R1b in Scandinavia is an important clue in determining the spread of the haplogroup in Europe, but I can't seem to get anyone else interested. Perhaps this is because the Celts were essentially absent from Scandinavia, so it doesn't attract much interest, though as you say the Beakers apparently had a foothold in at least northern Jutland and southern Norway.

I noticed a couple of them (Rannakliev and Backstrom) cluster closely with two Isles clusters (1012 A-SC and 1012 A-SC1 in the Yahoo group). I suppose the Scandinavians could be descended from the Isles (viking thrall scenario) or could the Scandinavians be the source for these clusters (a founder effect?). Is there any way, short of a papertrail, to indicate the gene flow? Backstrom's a Swede, but in medieval times and before that the area was much more fluid than before today's nation-states.

I'm thinking the Scandinavians are much older overall(as a group over the Isles clusters). The members are genetically more distant from each other overall and any clustering with Isles' men seems much more recent due to matching up on several medium and fast markers with the Scandinavians. Also, there was a Bell Beaker presence in Denmark and southern Norway, that is if there was a Beaker/L21 spread connection.

Thanks,Mike

Unfortunately Scandinavia, especially Denamrk, is one of the most undertested regions in FTDNA's database. I don't think anyone has a good idea how the R1b subclades will break down there. One thing we do know is that so far a great deal more L21 has turned up in Norway than any other R1b subclade. Also the so-called "Germanic" U106 so far appears to be pretty scarce in Norway. P312* appears to have a stronghold in Sweden, but is found in eastern Norway and Denmark as well. Whether these trends hold remains to be seen. However the L21 out of Britain crowd seem to be particularly opposed to any possibility that L21 was in Scandinavia before the Viking age.

I don't know if we have enough data there to make valid variance comparisons to other regions.

I have always suspected that R1b in Scandinavia is an important clue in determining the spread of the haplogroup in Europe, but I can't seem to get anyone else interested. Perhaps this is because the Celts were essentially absent from Scandinavia, so it doesn't attract much interest, though as you say the Beakers apparently had a foothold in at least northern Jutland and southern Norway.

Yeah, I think Denmark is one of the most undertested regions in Europe, among others. There needs to be an updated analysis of the sampling population there, taking into consideration P312* and L21 - which are common throughout Scandinavia.

While I think the Beaker theory is a good hypothesis to explain R1b (P312 and L21 in particular) in Western Europe, I don't think it will hold up as the de facto explanation for L21 in Scandinavia. L21 was probably among the Bronze and Iron Age cultures that influenced Proto-Norse society.

The abundance of L21 in Norway could be due to Norse, coastal settlements. I don't think we have to explain that with substantial input from the British Isles at all. The are a couple of L21 Norwegians in Northern Norway, near Troms and Steigen. The Norse usually settled on the coast, while the Saami held the northern interior.

I think there is too much L21 in Scandinavia to account for it with the Viking slave trade, but the problem is that there are a couple of Scandinavian guys with a lot of close Scottish matches, and they may actually descend from transplanted Scots.

And that is enough to convince some people (who want very badly to be convinced) that ALL Scandinavian L21+ is of British provenance.

Well, it simply is not true that many these Scandinavians are of British extraction.

One can also make the argument that those Scots who have close Scandinavian matches are descendants of Anglo-Scandinavian settlers. I agree with you that the naming of the numerous "Irish" and "British" clusters was premature.

For comparison, I did the same with all the Scandinavians, unclustered, and took out 2 downstreamers..244, n=17

The two Isles clusters appear much younger, whether the source is from Scandinavia or not. Rannakliev (1012 A-Sc1) and Backstrom (1012 A-Sc)average 10 and 13 mismatches(only 1 on 27 slowest) respectively@67 markers from every other cluster member.

The two Isles clusters appear much younger, whether the source is from Scandinavia or not.

This isn't surprising. Thanks for calculating the variances between samples, Mike. While I don't think all of these matching Scots are Scandinavian in origin, it may be understated how many of them are.

The two Isles clusters appear much younger, whether the source is from Scandinavia or not.

This isn't surprising. Thanks for calculating the variances between samples, Mike. While I don't think all of these matching Scots are Scandinavian in origin, it may be understated how many of them are.

The potential for Scandinavian lineages in Scotland is very significant. As well as the Norwegian Vikings (who at various points ruled Caithness, Sutherland, Ross, the Hebrides and much of the entire western seaboard etc() and viking descended clans, there was another group in Galloway. In addition the Angles conquered much of southern Scotland in the 600-800AD period and they formed the basis of the lowland Scots language. In addition they and others from England and the northern continent settled the burghs and fishing places under David I (c. 1100AD) as well as the many Norman land owners and families. As well as Gaelic descent, many of the Scottish clans are of Viking and Norman origins. You then have to factor in 1000 years of mobility within Scotland and you can see a sprinkling of Scandinavian blood got everywhere at least in modest amounts.

This is basically the same as Scandinavia. I wonder if L21 Bell-Beakers were arriving in both places about the same time.

531=12 has 100% presence in 1012 A-Sc and 1012 A-Sc1 (all countries)as a defining value of course. In the rest of the Scotland sample, it is only .12.

Others for 531=12, W.Europe with .04(4 of 90), Wales .11, England .04, Ireland .04 and Scandinavia .06 (1 of 17) among non-cluster members. As usual, nothing is ever clear with R1b, we need more Scandinavian L21+ members to get a better picture of gene flow. There is at least a hint that Scandinavia may be the source for 531=12 with 3 of 17 (.18) members having it.

Getting a larger, more representative sample from Scandinavia is what we need. Also, there has to be a way to combine the different databases into one, centralized database. A universal standard would help with data gathering.

The Western Isles were also connected to different locales throughout the Irish Sea and Northern England (Cumbria, York and Northumbria). Of course, the Scandinavians here were mostly of the Norwegian variety.

As I recall, in his book, Origins of the British, Oppenheimer briefly suggested that Scotland might have received some early (well before the historical period) input from Norway. He didn't go any further than that, but he did mention the idea.

I'm not a big Oppenheimer fan, but it is interesting that he did suggest movement from Norway to Scotland at a very early date.

As I recall, in his book, Origins of the British, Oppenheimer briefly suggested that Scotland might have received some early (well before the historical period) input from Norway. He didn't go any further than that, but he did mention the idea.

I'm not a big Oppenheimer fan, but it is interesting that he did suggest movement from Norway to Scotland at a very early date.

Even Oppenheimer couldn't get everything wrong.

A recent study by Dr. Wilson of Ethnoancestry and Edinburgh University also claimed to find genetic evidence in eastern Scotland which suggested settlements which probably arose during the Bronze Age through trading networks across the North Sea.

I have wondered if Oppenheimers book would in some way be used by dividing all his dates in three to get around his use of old style mutation rates. However, if you do that then all his 4-5000 year old style dates for mystery Scottish-Scandinavian contacts suddenly look a lot more like Viking age dates. There is very little evidence of cultural movement between Scotland and Scandinavia in the prehistoric period. The way the patterns looked so like dark age movements but were dated by Oppenheimer to the Neolithic, Bronze Age etc simply was an early warning for me that Oppenheimers dates were consistently far too old. His dates for R1b1b2 arriving in Ireland for example were something like 15000 years ago when in fact the archaeological evidence is that it was 10000 years ago. Dividing his dates in three gives 5000 years ago for R1b1b2 which is not too far from the later Neolithic/beaker period dates others have recently been suggesting. I suggest dividing all his dates by three as a starting point. Do that and all the archaeologically invisible Scandinavian-Scottish links disappear.

Overall of the 2 books that came out around the same time, I think Sykes book has stood the test of time much better simply because he knew the limitations and I think too he stuck to real dates rather than fudged ones multiplies by 3. I find his haplogroup breakdown for the British Isles in detail interesting even if they are not broken down into clades.

I have wondered if Oppenheimers book would in some way be used by dividing all his dates in three to get around his use of old style mutation rates. However, if you do that then all his 4-5000 year old style dates for mystery Scottish-Scandinavian contacts suddenly look a lot more like Viking age dates. There is very little evidence of cultural movement between Scotland and Scandinavia in the prehistoric period. The way the patterns looked so like dark age movements but were dated by Oppenheimer to the Neolithic, Bronze Age etc simply was an early warning for me that Oppenheimers dates were consistently far too old. His dates for R1b1b2 arriving in Ireland for example were something like 15000 years ago when in fact the archaeological evidence is that it was 10000 years ago. Dividing his dates in three gives 5000 years ago for R1b1b2 which is not too far from the later Neolithic/beaker period dates others have recently been suggesting. I suggest dividing all his dates by three as a starting point. Do that and all the archaeologically invisible Scandinavian-Scottish links disappear.

Overall of the 2 books that came out around the same time, I think Sykes book has stood the test of time much better simply because he knew the limitations and I think too he stuck to real dates rather than fudged ones multiplies by 3. I find his haplogroup breakdown for the British Isles in detail interesting even if they are not broken down into clades.

Note though that the link I provided above suggesting genetic evidence of a Bronze Age link between eastern Scotland and the continent comes not from Oppenheimer, but from a study by Jim Wilson and geneticists from Edinburgh University. Wilson is no fool and is probably as familiar with R1b SNPs as anyone. Of course that doesn't mean he is correct about the purported age of the contacts, but I am certainly more inclined to give credence to him than to Oppenheimer.

Goldenhind-It is true that an east-west divide in Britain that was identified in pre-DNA days by the old physical anthropologists extended even further north than can be explained by known major Germanic dark age settlement. Certainly, there was no Germanic kingdom in the east of Scotland between Fife and Inverness but the same divide has been observed.

However, there was a major language shift from Pictish to Gaelic to English (Scots) in that area between 800 and 1300 so influx must have happened and the one that established English must have brought in genes from England, Normandy and people like the Flemings were also important. Its a bit of a dark area in history but clearly there was a significant influx into the north of Scotland from England and other parts of Northern Europe.

The linked article only mentions Bronze Age trading networks but they really only linked peoples in terms of metalwork technology and everything else remained local. That is not indicative of significant movement. However, the whole of eastern Britain (in contrast to the west) had a very strong beaker culture and probably links with the Low Countries.

Is it my imagination or do we get intermittent info from Wilson etc but never any details? I am also curious about the east-west divide that he implies continues further north than can be explained by dark age Germanic kingdoms. However, Sykes gave Aberdeenshire etc a very high level of R1b on a par with places like Ireland and Wales. That to me made that part of NE Scotland sound quite 'western'. That only leaves 'Tayside' in the category of NE Scotland. If I recall correctly the main oddity there was a much higher amount of Haplogroup I. What both of the NE areas shared was very low R1a suggesting very little Norwegian input.

My own feeling is that NE Scotland (the Forth to the Moray Firth) did not receive input from Norway at any period but that there was a considerable flow (largely via England) that would have included Anglo-Saxon, Danish, Norman etc blood as well as Flemings etc. So, some input from Flanders to Denmark but not Norway.

We picked up a new R-L21 Norwegian today, Fjeldtvedt, kit E10796. I don't know anything yet about where his most distant y-dna ancestor came from, but his only close match beyond 12 markers is another Norwegian, Igland (ancestral surname Berge), Ysearch V3228.